Posted on 06/26/2005 5:54:23 AM PDT by hipaatwo
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq.
Sen. Chuck Hagel addresses more than 200 Nebraska American Legion members in Grand Island on Saturday.
It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:
The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.
Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren't helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.
And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.
"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."
It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000 Americans.
Failure in Iraq could lead to many more American deaths, disrupt U.S. oil supplies, damage the Middle East peace effort, spread terrorism and harm America's stature worldwide, Hagel said.
That's what keeps him on edge these days.
That's why he is again the most outspoken Republican in Congress about Iraq. His view that America is losing in Iraq, which first aired in a newsmagazine last week, prompted rebukes from conservatives such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh, concerns from others in his party and praise from anti-war advocates on the Internet.
But Saturday, he was unrepentant.
"The point is, we're going to have to make some changes or we will lose, we will lose in Iraq," he told the legionnaires.
At the same time, he said, he wants President Bush to win, and he believes that the United States cannot pull out anytime soon.
The legionnaires gave him a standing ovation at the end of his speech. Carl Marks of Omaha, a Korean War veteran, said: "It sounds like he's conflicted . . . like a lot of us."
Bennie Navratil of Hallam, Neb., whose son left last week for military duty in Afghanistan, said, "I feel he said the right thing: that we can't pull out and something's got to change."
Aboard a plane back to Omaha, Hagel was asked whether he thought Bush was aware that adjustments might be needed in his Iraq policy.
"I don't know," Hagel said.
The whole Iraqi situation makes him sick to his stomach, he said.
"It has tormented me, torn me more than any one thing," he said with a grim look on his face. "To see what these guys in Iraq are having to go through and knowing what I know here: that we didn't prepare for it, we didn't understand what we were getting into. And to put those guys in those positions, it makes me so angry."
He lays part of the blame on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who argued before the war that he needed only 150,000 American troops in Iraq. That caused more casualties than were needed, Hagel said.
"We still don't have enough troops," he said. "We should have had double or triple the number."
It has led to a bleak situation, Hagel said:
Insurgent attacks are more frequent than a year ago. Bombs used by insurgents are growing more deadly, piercing America's best protective clothing and equipment. Oil production is down. Electricity is less available than a year ago. Economic development is lagging. Ninety percent of the humanitarian and economic aid pledged by 60 nations hasn't reached Iraq because of the continuing violence. Only one Middle Eastern country has an ambassador in Iraq.
Bush has said America is fighting in Iraq with a "coalition of the willing," allies who have committed a relatively small number of troops and aid.
Hagel scoffed at that idea. "It's a joke to say there's a coalition of the willing," he said, adding that many are pulling out and the United States is fronting the bills for those who remain.
Meanwhile, U.S. troops are under severe strain. Troops are stationed in more than 100 countries, and their rapid tempo of deployments with little time off leaves them fatigued and in danger of making mistakes.
"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said. "We're stretching our Army to the breaking point."
Public pronouncements from the Bush administration also have gotten under Hagel's skin. Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments that the insurgents in Iraq are in "the last throes" echo a refrain of the Vietnam era, he said.
Back then, officials saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, Hagel said.
Toting up all those points, he said, leads him to conclude that the United States is losing in Iraq.
"That doesn't mean we have to lose," he said.
In his speech and in an interview, Hagel offered some ideas that he thinks could help in Iraq:
U.S. troops and others could work harder to train local militias in small Iraqi towns to help identify and take on insurgents. Allies who don't want to enter Iraq could help patrol its borders, blocking terrorists from entering the war-torn country. The training of Iraq's military and military police should be accelerated immediately.
Middle Eastern nations should become more engaged, he said, but it doesn't help when administration officials criticize Egypt and Saudi Arabia for not moving quickly enough toward democratic practices.
Hagel said he shaped his views after many talks recently with senior U.S. military officials; foreign policy experts; Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's national security adviser; and others. He plans to share his views with the current president and his team and says he feels an urgency he hopes they will share.
The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said.
"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said. "I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq. I believe we have a very limited time for that good outcome."
At the same time, he said, he wants President Bush to win, and he believes that the United States cannot pull out anytime soon.
Hagel for President!
Right now!
You should be ashamed of yourself.
War wound score card:
limp wristed POS ... 2
The 3 caballeros ..... 0
Au contraire!
I heard Vice President (last throes) Cheney say it just this morning! It was pre-war video tape of his his famous "we'll be welcomed as liberators interview".
You Bots and your mindless denial kill me.
But its our troops getting killed that matter.
YES! By God!
And without a draft and with more tax cuts and domestic Pork! What a great country! (/sarcasm)
McCain/Hagel in 2008 as an independent party would hurt the democrats more than the republicans.They will never get the republican party nod.
No I'm not ashamed of myself, since he appears to be in
campaign mode, he is open to criticism. He has been a contrary
figure for some time. In my opinion he is on a par with McLame.
Those are just my personal opinions of Hagel and McCain.
I'm sorry if they disagree with yours, this isn't a Durbinesque apology
This morning, Rumsfeld said the troop level was 139,000 as per the general's request. Three months ago it was 160,000 as per the general's request. He said those 21,000 extra troops were there if they needed them again. He said they didn't want them. If troops are now available that are not being requested, then the commanders don't feel we need more troops.
And did that happen? . . . It didn't happen because they gave Van Riper an important weapon in his arsenal that Saddam Hussein didn't have -- Chinese-made Silkworm missiles.
This doesn't make sense. Someone who makes a prediction that doesn't pan out should not have his credibility enhanced because of the bad prediction.
I agree that foreigners comprise a significant portion of the enemy forces in Iraq,
As I understand it, it is not just a significant portion but the majority as far as the terrorism goes. Anyway, we apparently have the support of the vast majority of the Iraqis.
It sounds like he lost an argument, got mad and quit. Sort of what happened to Patton and MacArthur, right?
No, Patton & MacArthur were both fired from commands. Neither ever quit.
Because he's a vet whose served under enemy fire?
Passes, no. Respect, yes.
What they should do is run two independent-independent campaigns.
Then we can have an independents view of an independents view.
Why stop at two, we can have that other gentleman who was also reluctantly in Vietnam, we all know him fondly as "rice in the bum", and his crazy rich bimbo wife.
From: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/19/news/war.html
I much appreciate the reply and the link!
If you have a little time (about two hours) . . . and of course, the interest . . . compare the Times 20 October 2004 article with Rumsfeld's and Franks' testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Lessons Learned from the war in Iraq) on 9 July 2004.
Nothing in Franks' testimony affirms or denies that he made the drawing room remarks concerning early drawdown of most troops, but going back to watch the hearing via C-SPAN was extremely interesting and useful. For some reason, only the first session was either recorded or archived by C-SPAN. (Gawd bless C-SPAN!)
Franks gives his opening statement about 30 minutes into the hearing and answers his first question at about 56 minutes. Here's the link: http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Senate%20Armed%20Services%20Committee%20Hearing%20on%20%22Lessons%20Learned%20from%20Operation%20Iraqi%20Freedom%22&link=rtsp%3A%2F%2Fcspanrm.fplive.net%2Fcspan%2Fgdrive%2Firaq070903%5Firaqlessons.rm
If you do take a look and stumble on the afternoon session, please give me a shout.
Hagel can rot in hell, as far as I'm concerned. The man is a liar, a backstabber, and just a more subtle, sly version of Jane Fonda. Sorry, I've seen and heard enough from him to conclude that he has ulterior motives and is dishonest.
I will never forget what he said.
Much, much thanks!
I'm searching through our library database servers for the exercise's formal critique. Should I find something, I'll send the url or the title your way.
At the same time he made that statement he was predicting an occupation force about 30,000.
You defend the indefensible.
From the time we turned from the pursuit of al Quaeda our policy has been one misguided, wishful thinking decision after another.
As it turned out he had MORE than he needed for the invasion.
As Paul Harvey would say, "Now for the REST of the story"!
Attaboy Marty, you'll be an Admiral in no time.
There's nothing George loves more than a yes man.
Scat.
Shoo fly, don't bother me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.